Surname?

My partner and I discussed this at length, and could not find a compelling reason for either name. The arguments for /against each option were fairly balanced. We tossed a coin (best of 3!).

Calm down, we're just saying it's not exactly a shocker that your name was the one given second middle name status. The odds were very much in the favour of your child being given his father's surname as most kids in this country are. So not 50/50 at all.

Bertrand is right, you know... You've just followed exactly that tradition you claimed not to follow.

9 times out of 10 when a parent's surname is used a middle name it's the mother's name.

"Well Bertrand had a 50/50 chance of being right."

No I didn't. I had about a 90% chance of being right. I would have had a 95% chance, but you did say "I don't follow the tradition of giving fathers name just because generations before have done" so the odds were slightly longer.

If you don't use a hyphen your name will vanish.

Use his as a middle name. When I had DS I gave him Xp's name as I was sure we would get married. But, life happened and now I have a different surname to my son - very annoying. Practically as well as I travel a lot with him so passport control can be a nightmare.

My advice would be to give Dc your name then if you change your name through marriage you can change Dc name by deed poll. I wish wish wish someone had suggested this to me!

Cross post. I'm "one of those people" who says sex, not gender. HTH

Middle names are never used FFS.
That's a lame excuse for using his surname instead of yours.

"Let me guess. It's your name that's going to be the second name......"

Aaand Bertrand was right

I personally think this is a pretty suggestion:

FWIW I think you should give the child your surname, for the simple reason that if you decide to change it to his after marriage, it will be reasonably easy to achieve (presumably he would agree to it), whereas if you give the child his surname and later decide you want to change it to yours, that will be harder to achieve (because you'll need his permission and he might not agree to it).

Or, as pp suggested, you could give DD his surname but count this as his "pick", so you get to choose her first name...

My children have my DHs surname. When we travel with DH it is fine, when it is just me I usually have to show their birth certificates at the border control.
In the name front, I thought it would bother me more not having the same name as my kids but I don't really mind. Maybe I will change it later, maybe not. I got most say on their first names so I think it is fair. I know several women who have used their maiden name as a second middle name for their kids.

I'm married but I retained my last name. Our child has both our last names double barrelled. We haven't had any issues at passport control (he's only 2 but has flown quite a bit).

Borders are not a problem if they have the same surname and if they have different ones then just travel with a photocopy of the birth certificate

The tradition is NOT giving children their father's name. The tradition is to give them the mother's name. Obviously if the mother was married to the father her name would be the same as his but unmarried mothers always had to give children their surname. Fathers never 'gave' their surnames to illegitimate children in the old days.

Could you blend your surnames in some way? Hard to make suggestions without knowing the surnames, but I understand you probably don't want to out yourself by sharing them.

Could you tell us how many syllables in each surname?

DS has two surnames, each with two syllables, and it's a bit of a mouthful but it was the only fair way. His first and middle names are just one syllable each, at least

I know what the patriarchal tradition is; I meant if the children have the mother's name there's unlikely to be an issue re. passports?

It's not a petty question at all.

FWIW I think you should give the child your surname, for the simple reason that if you decide to change it to his after marriage, it will be reasonably easy to achieve (presumably he would agree to it), whereas if you give the child his surname and later decide you want to change it to yours, that will be harder to achieve (because you'll need his permission and he might not agree to it).

Also because you are going to carry this child for 9 months and then give birth and then (if you're like the vast majority of mothers) take more parental leave than your partner, and maybe become a SAHP or return to work but with reduced working hours, so you can look after your child.

So it might seem "unequal" to give the mother priority as far as naming a child is concerned, but life is still unequal, and choosing how we name our own children is the least we deserve!

"But you wouldn't be inconvenienced if you had the same name as your children, so I don't see where patriarchal naming traditions come in?
Do your children share a surname, Bertrand?".
The "patriarchal" naming tradition is the automatic use of the father's name. And the travelling thing is often quoted as a reason for sticking to it. I was just pointing out that mild inconvenience 4 times a year doesn't seem to be a big price to pay!
And yes, my children have the same name. And the same parents.

But you wouldn't be inconvenienced if you had the same name as your children, so I don't see where patriarchal naming traditions come in?
Do your children share a surname, Bertrand?
I think full siblings having different surnames is the oddest thing of all, for all the sneering family names seems to elicit, for some reason.

I have a different name to my children, and it's never been an issue although know it has for some people. It does seem a bit strange, though, that a key reason for maintaining patriarchal naming traditions seems to be the possibility of being mildly inconvenienced 4 times a year...........